£3-1.3 


S  P  E  E  C  H 


OF 


GEORGE  E.  PUGH,  OF  OHIO, 


IN  TUB 


DEMOCRATIC  NATIONAL  CONVENTION 


AT  CHARLESTON, 


FRIDAY,  APRIL  27,  1860. 

- •  ♦  &mrnm— - - 

Hon.  William  L.  Yancey,  of  Alabama,  having  concluded  his  speech  in  support  of  the 
Platform  first  reported  by  Mr.  Avery  of  North  Carolina,  from  the  majority  of  the  Com¬ 
mittee  on  resolutions,  Mr.  PUGII  addressed  the  Convention  substantially  as  follows: 

4 

I  rejoice  that  so  candid,  able,  and  eloquent  a  gentleman  lias  told  us,  at  last, 
what  the  majority  of  the  Committee  intend  by  their  report,  and  what  is  the  real 
question  now  to  be  decided.  The  delegate  from  Alabama  scorns  equivocation  ; 
hides  behind  no  mere  pretext ;  does  not  attempt  to  deceive  us  in  any  manner: 
he  demands,  plainly,  that  the  Democratic  party  of  the  Northern  States  shall  ad¬ 
vance  another  degree — advance  to  a  position  never  yet  assumed — in  order  (as 
he  has  said)  adequately  to  assure  the  rights  and  the  honor  of  the  South.  He 
need  not  have  told  us,  however,  that  a  concession  to  his  demand,  if  the  demand 
be  just  and  reasonable,  will  result  iu  no  permanent  or  even  serious  injury  t> 
ourselves.  I  agree,  at  once,  that  the  Northern  Democracy  ought  to  concede 
whatever  is  just  and  reasonable;  satisfy  me  iu  that  regard,  and  then,  so  far  as 
I  am  concerned,  all  exhortations,  or  appeals,  or  arguments  from  expediency,  will 
be  superfluous. 

Why  should  the  honorable  delegate  speak  to  you  (General  Cushing  in  the 
Chair)  or  me,  or  any  of  our  colleagues,  of  adhering  to  principles  rather  than 
seeking  immediate  or  personal  success?  It  is  not  in  Alabama,  with  her  unani¬ 
mous  Democratic  representation  in  Congress,  with  her  thousands  and  tens  of 
thousands  of  Democratic  majorities,  increasing  from  year  to  year,  that  one  would 
ordinarily  look  for  examples  of  such  virtue  :  it  is  rather  in  Massachusetts,  in 
Ohio,  or  iu  some  other  State  where  victory  is  hopeless,  or,  at  best,  uncertain. 
The  honorable  delegate  must  have  forgotten  the  history  of  events,  at  the  North, 
during  the  last  six  years.  In  what,  sir,  have  we  failed  of  duty  toward  our 
brethren  of  the  South?  When  have  we  denied  the  faith,  or  abandoned  th^ 
Democratic  organization,  for  the  sake  of  any  local  advantage  ?  Let  the  honor¬ 
able  delegate,  or  some  one  else,  name  such  an  occasion — the  time,  the  place,, 
and  tbe  circumstances.  I  remember  distinctly  that  in  March,  1854,  when  I  was 
elected  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  the  whole  Northwest  belonged  to 
us;  that  there  was  not  a  single  Senator  or  Representative  of  any  other  party, 
in  Congress,  from  all  the  States  of  Illinois,  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  and  Iowa. 

_ _S - ! — _ — - - - 


Printed  by  Lemuel  Towers,  at  per  hundred  copies. 


2 


There  was  one  Whig  Representative  from  Indiana,  and  nine  from  Ohio;  but 
those  two  States  were  controlled  by  the  Democratic  party,  and  had  been  so  con¬ 
trolled  for  a  long  time.  We  adhered  to  your  cause,  gentlemen  of  the  South,  in 
supporting  the  Kansas- Nebraska  bill;  we  have  adhered  ever  since — until  from 
such  heights  of  power,  and  influence,  and  almost  absolute  domination,  at  home, 
we  have  fallen  to  what  we  now  are.  I  say  this  not  to  invoke  sympathy,  nor  any 
reward  at  your  hands :  we  ask  you  for  justice  only,  and  justice  we  must  have. 

Mr.  President:  In  the  month  of  January,  1856,  when  the  Democracy  of  Ala¬ 
bama,  by  their  delegates,  assembled  in  State  Convention,  at  Montgomery,  the 
honorable  gentleman  (Mr.  Yancey)  played  as  distinguished  a  part  as  he  now  does. 
The  State  then  delivered  her  opinion  with  regard  to  all  the  questions  here  in¬ 
volved,  and,  at  the  same  time,  delivered  her  instructions  to  those  whom  she  ap¬ 
pointed  to  meet  and  consult  with  delegates  from  the  other  States  at  Cincinnati. 
I  have  in  my  hand  the  official  record  of  that  Alabama  convention,  and  will  read 
from  it. 

“Mr.  Yancey,  of  Montgomery,  offered  the  following  resolution,  which  was  adopted: 

“ Resolved ,  That  two  delegates  from  e  ich  congressional  district  be  appointed  by  the 
ebair  to  draft  suitable  resolutions  for  the  action  of  this  convention. 

“The  chair  appointed,  under  said  resolution,  from  the 

“Third  District — Messrs.  W.  L.  Yancey  and  J.  C.  Towle3. 

“First  District — Messrs.  Meek  and  Stallworth. 

"Second  District — Messrs.  Cochran  and  Burnett. 

“Fourth  District — Messrs.  Brooks  and  Clements. 

“Fifth  District — Messrs.  Phinisy  and  Smith. 

“Sixth  District — Messrs.  L.  P.  Walker  and  W.  O.  Winston. 

“Seventh  District — Messrs.  J.  L.  M.  Curry  and  N.  S.  Graham.” 

Gentlemen  of  the  Alabama  delegation,  how  many  of  you  were  members  of 
that  Committee  ?  * 

"The  Committee  on  Resolutions,  through  its  chairman,  Mr.  W.  L.  Yancey,  of  Montgom¬ 
ery,  submitted  the  following  report: 

“That  the  act  of  Congress  providing  territorial  governments  for  Nebraska  and  Kansas, 
embodies  the  principle  of  Congressional  non-interference  upon  the  subject  of  slavery  in 
the  Territories,  and  that  the  provisions  of  that  act,  so  far  as  they  relate  to  that  subject, 
meet  the  hearty  concurrence  and  approval  of  this  convention. 

“That  the  Delegates  to  the  Democratic  National  Convention  to  nominate  a  President 
and  Vice  President  are  hereby  expressly  instructed  to  insist  that  the  said  convention  shall 
adopt  a  platform  of  principles,  as  the  basis  of  a  national  organization,  prior  to  the  nomi¬ 
nation  of  candidates,  unequivocally  asserting,  in  substance,  the  following  propositions: 

“1.  The  recognition  and  approval  of  the  principle  of  non-intervention  by  Congress 
upon  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  Territories. 

That  no  restriction  or  prohibition  of  slavery  in  any  Territory  ehall  hereafter  be 
made  by  any  act  of  Congress. 

“3.  That  no  State  shall  be  refused  admission  into  the  Union  because  of, the  existence  of 
slavery  therein. 

“4.  The  faithful  execution  and  maintenance  of  the  fugitive  slave  law.” 

The  honorable  delegate  said  that  we,  of  other  States,  had  no  concern  with  the 
instructions  of  Alabama  to  her  delegates  upon  the  present  occasion.  Assuredly 
not,  sir,  but  for  the  fact  that  those  instructions  have  been  formally  communica¬ 
ted  to  us  by  the  delegates  themselves.  It  is  no  secret,  therefore,  that  Alabama 
refuses  to  act  with  us  except  on  particular  conditions;  and  those  conditions  are 
such  as  the  honorable  delegate  has  himself  announced.  But,  sir,  Alabama  made 
conditions  quite  as  peremptory,  and  at  the  instance  of  the  honorable  delegate, 
four  years  ago.  She  seems  determined  to  prescribe  beforehand,  in  all  cases,  the 
terms  on  which  site  will  act  with  other  States.  Here  is  one  of  her  resolutions, 
following  those  which  I  have  read,  in  January,  1856  : 


•Note. — Messrs.  Yancey,  Meek,  Burnett,  Brooks,  Smith,  and  Walker  were  delegate* 
from  Alabama  in  the  Convention  at  Charleston. 


# 


3 

“That  if  said  National  Convention  shall  refuse  to  adopt  the  propositions  embraced  in 
the  preceding  resolutions,  our  delegates  to  said  convention  are  hereby  positively  instruct*  - 
ed  to  "withdraw  therefrom.”  k 

Let  me  stand  here,  Mr.  President,  as  the  most  appropriate  place  of  reply  to 
the  gentleman  who  has  preceded  me.  Whatever  the  aggressions  of  the  North 
upon  the  South,  previous  to  January,  1856,  these  resolutions  contain  the  whole 
remedy  which  Alabama  then  demanded — 

Judge  Meek,  of  Alabama.  I  call  upon  the  gentleman  who  has  read  the  Ala¬ 
bama  platform  to  read  the  whole  of  the  resolutions.  If  he  will  read  the  first 
resolution,  he  will  find  a  very  different  doctrine  there,  qualifying  what  he  has 
read. 

Mr.  Pugh.  I  will,  with  pleasure,  in  one  moment;  although,  assuredly,  the 
honorable  gentleman  does  not  mean  to  suggest  that  contrary  doctrines  were  af¬ 
firmed  by  the  same  resolutions.  [Laughter.] 

Judge  Meek.  The  gentleman  has  only  taken  a  part  of  the  platform.  He 
must  take  the  whole  together. 

Mr.  Pugh.  I  will  explain  to  the  gentleman,  at  once,  what  I  intended  to  have 
explained  in  five  minutes  more.  The  Alabama  platform  of  1856  consisted  of 
two  distinct  series  of  resolutions.  The  first  declares  the  opinions  of  Alabama, 
separately ,  as  to  all  the  questions  now  under  debate  :  that  was  her  own,  private, 
separate  opinion.  But  when  she  instructed  her  delegates  to  speak  for  her,  in 
General  Convention  of  the  Democratic  party,  she  did  not  instruct  them  to  re¬ 
quire  that;  she  put  no  such  language  into  their  mouths.  [Applause.] 

Judge  Meek.  If  the  gentleman  will  not  read  the  first  resolution,  the  conven¬ 
tion  will  understand  why - 

Mr.  Pugh.  The  gentleman  shall  not  complain  that  I  have  done  the  least  in¬ 
justice  to  Alabama;  and,  therefore,  I  will  now  read  the  resolution  to  which  be 
refers.  I  hope  that  every  delegate  will  listen  to  it. 

“We,  the  delegates  of  the  Democratic  and  anti-Know  Nothing  party  of  Alabama,  in 
convention  assembled,  do  adopt  the  following  resolutions: 

“  1.  That  the  following  principles  constitute  the  true  basis  of  the  national  Democratic 
organization : 

“First  The  perfect  equality  of  privileges — civil,  religious,  and  political — of  every  citi¬ 
zen  of  our  country,  without  reference  to  the  place  of  his  birth. 

“  2.  The  unqualified  right  of  the  people  of  the  slaveholding  States  to  the  protection  of 
their  property  in  the  States,  in  the  Territories,  and  in  the  wilderness  in  which  territorial 
governments  are  as  yet  unorganized.  The  Democratic  platform  is  based  on  the  recogni¬ 
tion,  not  of  one,  but  of  both  of  these  principles;  and  when  efforts  are  made  to  separate 
these  two  questions,  the  Democratic  party,  resting  upon  its  platform,  sayB:  We  cannot 
compromise  either  proposition,  but  stand  united  upon  both.” 

Mr.  Yancey.  I  endeavored  to  take  this  question  out  of  the  range  of  mere 
personal  consistency.  Thegeutleman  has  the  advantage  of  following  me.  With 
the  great  respect  I  have  for  his  power  of  argument,  I  do  not  fear  to  enter  the 
lists  with  the  gentleman  upon  the  principles  I  have  laid  down,  but  I  confess  that 
if  he  is  allowed  to  state  my  position  and  my  mouth  is  closed  meanwhile,  I  should 
be  placed  at  a  very  great  disadvantage - 

Mr.  Pugh.  I  was  about  to  say  that  I  made  my  observations  in  no  personal 
sense. 

Mr.  Yancey.  Still  they  bear  a  personal  application.  I  will  say  that  no  man 
recognizes  more  fully  the  disadvantage  under  which  a  speaker  is  placed  by  in¬ 
terruptions  than  myself.  I  do  not  desire  to  interrupt  any  gentleman  ;  I  shall 
not  hereafter  do  so;  but  if  the  gentleman  alludes  to  any  personal  position  of 
mine,  I  shall  claim  the  courtesy  of  him  to  afiord  me  a  fair  opportunity  of  reply- 

irg* 

Mr.  Pugh.  The  gentleman  may  interrupt  me,  or  reply  to  me,  at  his  own 
convenience ;  but  I  repeat  that  the  occasion  is  too  grave,  in  my  estimation,  for 


t 


4 


any  of  us  to  debate  an  issue  of  personal  consistency  on  the  one  side  or  the  other, 
I  referred  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Alabama  Convention  in  January,  1856,  not 
to  arraign  the  gentleman  and  his  colleagues  individually,  but  to  show  that  in 
the  very  year  of  the  Cincinnati  platform,  and  just  before  its  adoption,  when  that 
State  acted  under  the  advice  of  the  same  gentlemen  who  uow  represent  her — 
able,  accomplished,  and  eloquent,  as  all  must  acknowledge  them  to  be — while 
she  entertained,  for  herself,  the  very  opinions  which  the  gentleman  has  so  ably 
and  eloquently  announced  in  regard  to  vexed  questions  of  constitutional  law — 
she,  nevertheless,  agreed  as  the  basis  of  compromise,  of  general  or  national  or¬ 
ganization,  to  accept  the  doctrine  of  congressional  non-intervention  with  respect 
to  slavery  in  the  Territories.  Alabama  did  not,  on  that  occasion,  propound  to 
ns  the  doctrine  which  she  propounds  now;  and  that  is  the  point  of  this  whole 
controversy  from  the  fiist'to  the  last.  She  now  calls  upon  us  to  decide,  as  a 
party,  that  which  did  not  (in  her  opinion)  require  any  decision  at  that  time; 
she  calls  upon  us  to  advance — to  adopt,  as  the  platform  of  our  party,  that  which 
she  did  not  deem  so  essential  four  years  ago.  [Applause.]  It  cannot  be  said 
that  she  did  not  understand  the  question  at  that  time,  because  the  first  resolu¬ 
tion  proves  that  she  did.  Why  not  insist  upon  it  then?  Because,  my  lellow- 
citizens,  this  great  Federal  Government  is  a  government  of  compromise.  The 
Democratic  party  recognizes  the  fact  that  the  several  States  of  this  Union  must 
needs  have,  with  due  regard  to  their  climate,  their  soil,  their  circumstances,  vari¬ 
ous  forms  of  political  aud  social  life;  and  the  distinct  feature  of  our  confedera¬ 
tion  is  that  it  unites  together,  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific,  from  the  Lakes 
to  the  Gulf,  all  these  various  forms  of  political  and  social  life,  all  into  one  com¬ 
mon  family  so  that  we  may  live  in  peace,  forbearance  aud  unity  together.  [Ap¬ 
plause.]  We  cannot — any  of  us — have  all  our  rights;  we  cannot  have  ail  we 
desire.  The  slaveholding  States  cannot  have  everything;  the  nou-slawholding 
States  cannot  have  everything;  and,  therefore,  the  State  of  Alabama, four  years 
ago,  feeling  as  acutely  upon  these  questions  as  she  now  feels,  admitted  that  it 
was  consistent  with  her  safety,  her  rights,  and  her  honor  to  commune  with  other 
States — non-slaveholding  State? — iu  counsel,  and  therefore  agreed  to  the  com¬ 
promise  of  Congressional  non-intervention. 

The  gentleman  adverted  to  many  encroachments  of  the  North  upon  the  South; 
but  none  of  these  occurred  by  the  assistance  of  the  Democratic  party  in  the 
Northern  States,  nor  whilst  any  Northern  Democrat  held  the  Presidential  chair. 
That  such  has  been  the  opinion  of  Alabama,  heretofore,  is  evident  from  the  fact 
that  she  voted  for  the  re-election  of  Martin  Van  Buren  in  1840,  and  tor  the  re¬ 
nomination  of  Franklin  Pierce  in  1856.  In  fact,  sir,  the  Alabama  resolutions  of 
1856,  from  which  I  have  quoted,  endorse  the  administration  of  Pierce  in  terms 
at  once  cordial  and  unqualified.  Whatever  the  encroachments  of  the  Northern 
Democracy,  therefore,  it  is  plain  that  they  are  of  recent  date;  that  they  have 
occurred  since  Mr.  Buchanan’s  election.  But  the  honorable  delegate  specified 
one  such  encroachment,  and  no  more,  within  that  period  ;  namely,  the  refusal 
to  admit  the  State  of  Kansas,  as  a  slaveholding  State,  under  the  Lecompton  con¬ 
stitution.  It  is  tiue  that  some  of  the  Northern  Democrats,  in  Congress,  disa¬ 
greed  with  the  Southern  Democracy  on  that  occasion — and  wherefore  ?  Because 
the  admission  of  a  slaveholding  State  was  demanded  ?  Why,  sir,  not  one  of  them 
objected  for  any  such  reason,  They  had  all  opposed  the  admission  of  Kansas 
into  the  Union,  as  a  non-slaveholding  State,  in  what  they  believed  to  be  circum¬ 
stances  entirely  similar — opposed  it  zealously,  bitteily,  and  successfully,  at  the 
time  of  the  Topeka  constitution.  I  did  not  agree  with  Mr.  Douglas  in  that 
Lecompton  controversy  ;  I  should  not  agree  with  him,  to-day,  if  the  same  con¬ 
troversy  weie  again  to  arise;  but  I  can  well  understand  how  a  gentleman,  a 
patriot,  a  sincere  advocate  of  Democratic  principles  might  differ  with  me,  and 
differ  widely,  as  to  the  regularity  of  proceedings  toward  the  formation  of  a  State 


5 


government,  and  without  any  regard  to  the  question  whether  it  was  to  be  a 
slaveholding  or  a  non  slaveholding  State.  We  have  differed  among  ourselves, 
in  this  Convention,  in  like  circumstances — differed  as  to  which  of  two  entire 
delegations  from  the  State  of  New  York,  had  the  prestige  of  regularity,  and 
therefore  the  light  of  admission. 

But  the  honorable  delegate  seems  to  have  forgotten  the  Conference  or  English 
bill.  T'nat  was  a  bill  for  the  admission  of  Kausas  into  the  Union,  as  a  slavs- 
holding  State,  if  her  people  so  desired  ;  it  was  emphatically  a  Southern  meas¬ 
ure — prepared  by  Southern  men,  and  urged  by  Southern  influence.  Of  the  six 
managers  who  framed  it — three  from  the  Senate  and  three  from  the  House — four 
were  Democrats,  and  the  Sonth  had  three  of  those  four.  There  were  Mr.  Green 
of  Missouri,  Mr.  Hunter  of  Virginia,  and  Mi1.  Stephens  of  Georgia;  Mr.  English 
of  Indiana  was  the  only  Northern  Democrat  in  the  conference.  How  did  we 
vote  on  that  question  ?  In  the  Senate,  nine  Northern  Democrats  in  the  affirma¬ 
tive,  and  three  in  the  negative;  in  the  House,  forty  in  the  affirmative,  and  thir¬ 
teen  in  the  negative.  What  were  the  votes  (turning  to  Mr.  Vallandigham)  of 
our  Northwestern  men  ? 

Mr.  Vallandigham.  Thirteen  voted  for  it,  in  the  House,  and  six  against  it. 

Mr.  Pugh.  More  than  two  to  one.  Every  Democratic  Congressman  from 
Ohio  voted  for  the  bill ;  and  yet,  sir,  the  South  did  not  unanimously  support  it, 
nor  unanimously  support  the  Senate  bill  (so  called)  for  the  admission  of  Kansas 
under  the  Lecompton  constitution. 

This  leads  me  to  notice  an  assertion  of  the  honorable  delegate  from  North 
Carolina  (Mr.  Avery)  in  offering  the  resolutions  proposed  by  a  majority  of  the 
Committee  over  which  he  presides — an  assertion  repeated  and  even  dwelt  upon, 
with  considerable  warmth,  by  the  honorable  delegate  from  Alabama.  It  was 
to  the  effect  that  the  resolutions  of  the  majority  had  been  adopted,  in  Commit¬ 
tee,  by  the  votes  of  the  reliable  Democratic  States.  Since  what  period,  gentle¬ 
men,  have  all  those  States  become  so  reliably  Democratic  ?  If  you  are  familiar 
with  history,  since  the  inauguration  of  Andrew  Jackson,  in  March,  1829,  you 
must  know  that  the  State  of  New  Hampshire — which  you  assume  to  treat  with 
so  much  contumely — has  voted  for  a  Democratic  President  more  often  than  the 
State  of  Georgia — Maine  as  often  as  Louisiana,  and  Rhode  Island  as  often  as 
Delaware — Ohio  more  often  than  Kentucky,  and  New  York  than  Tennessee. 
Illinois  never  voted  for  any  President  except  the  Democratic  nominee — [ap¬ 
plause] — Indiana  and  Michigan  never  but  twice — Towa  and  Wisconsin  but  once. 
Tennessee  voted  for  Jackson  twice,  and  then  voted  against  us  until  the  tifhe  of 
Buchanan — a  period  of  twenty  years.  Kentucky  has  voted  for  a  Democratic 
President  once,  and  but  once,  from  1828  until  the  present  hour.  I  say  this  not 
tQ  provoke  comparisons;  I  say  it  merely  to  repel  them. 

But,  sir,  as  North  Carolina  has  spoken  to  us,  particularly,  let  me  examine 
her  antecedents.  She  was  a  Whig  State,  and  hopelessly  such,  for  sixteen  years- 
but  in  1852,  after  the  Democracy  of  the  Northwest  had  united  with  the  De¬ 
mocracy  of  the  South  to  defeat  the  Wilmot  proviso,  and  had  actually  and 
forever  defeated  it,  she  awoke  barely  in  time  to  vote  for  Franklin  Pierce.  Af¬ 
terwards,  when  the  Democracy  of  the  Northwest  had  so  far  advanced,  with  the 
Democracy  of  the  South,  as  to  repeal  the  Missouri  restriction  of  March  6th, 
1820,  and  enact  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill — why,  sir,  North  Carolina  then  ad¬ 
vanced  a  little  farther,  and  gave  a  handsome  majority  to  James  Buchanan. 
But,  instead  of  any  assurance,  at  present,  that  she  will  continue  in  good 
works — as  the  honorable  delegate  [Mr.  Avery]  would  persuade  us — she  is  now 
“backsliding”  into  her  old  and  sorrowful  condition.  Her  delegation  is  equally 
divided,  to-day,  in  the  House  of  Representatives — four  Democrats  only,  and  foctr 
Oppositionists — whereas  the  State  of  Ohio  furnishes,  even  now,  six  Democratic 
votes  in  that  House.  Does  the  honorable  delegate  suppose,  therefore,  that  be 

% 


6 


can  speak  to  us,  in  this  debate,  as  one  having  authority ;  that  we  rank  ourselves 
as  inferior  to  him  in  any  degree;  that  when  we  call  upon  the  Southern  De¬ 
mocracy  to  maintain  their  faith  solemnly  plighted  with  us  in  1854,  and  again 
in  1856,  we  are  such  cravens  as,  at  his  rebuke,  to  place  our  hands  on  our  mouths 
and  our  mouths  in  the  dust?  Oh,  gentlemen  of  the  South — once  for  all ! — you 
entirely  mistake  us.  We  are  not  of  that  sort;  we  cannot  do  what  you  seem 
to  desire — and  we  will  not!  [Applause.] 

The  honorable  delegate  from  Alabama  enquired  wherein,  if  at  all,  his  propo¬ 
sition  would  infringe  upon  the  rights  of  the  North.  Well,  sir,  I  do  not  care 
to  answer  that  question  at  present — and  because  I  intend  to  argue  with  him, 
this  night,  upon  much  higher  and  nobler  considerations.  Granted,  for  the  sake 
of  argument,  that  no  right  of  the  Northern  States  will  be  infringed,  or  rendered 
less  available,  by  the  doctrine  of  Congressional  intervention  ;  I  object  to  it,  nev¬ 
ertheless,  as  a  doctrine  sanctioned  by  no  constitutional  warrant — as  dangerous 
alike  to  the  South  and  the  North,  as  fatal  to  the  peace  of  the  country,  as  in 
utter  contravention  of  our  promises  to  each  other  and  to  the  world.  Do  I 
stand  now,  sir,  upon  the  soil  of  South  Carolina— of  the  State  which,  more  than 
all  others,  for  so  long  a  period,  through  evil  as  well  as  good  repute,  has  identi¬ 
fied  herself  with  strict  construction  and  reserved  rights — of  the  State  which  as¬ 
serted  those  two  great  and  cardinal  principles  even  to  the  verge  of  nullification —  _ 
of  the  State  which  has  given  a  Calhoun,  a  Hayne,  a  McDuffie,  a  Cheves,  and 
a  Butler,  to  our  common  history — and  yet  feel  myself  under  the  necessity  of 
apologizing  when  I  require  gentlemen  to  show  me,  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  an  adequate  delegation  to  the  Federal  Government  of  whatever 
authority,  upon  any  subject,  they  would  ask  that  Government  to  exercise? 
Show  it  to  me,  gentlemen ! — that  is  what  I  demand — place  your  fingers  upon 
the  article,  the  section,  the  very  words,  whence  you  derive  a  power  so  novel,  so 
dangerous,  or,  at  least,  so  delicate.  * 

[On  motion  of  Mr.  Stuart,  of  Michigan,  the  Convention  here  took  a  recess 
for  one  hour.  Mr.  Pugh  resumed  the  floor  at  nine  o’clock.] 

I  said,  before  the  recess,  that  I  objected  to  tbe  doctrine  of  Congressional  in¬ 
tervention,  whether  for  the  maintenance  or  protection  of  slavery,  within  the 
Territories,  or  its  abolition  or  exclusion,  because  I  could  find  no  warrant,  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  for  such  an  exercise  of  Federal  dominion. 
If  the  honorable  delegate  from  Alabama,  or  any  other  gentleman,  will  satisfy 
me  in  that  regard — will  show  me  a  sufficient  authority  in  the  Constitution  from 
whidb,  and  from  which  only,  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  must  derive  all 
the  powers  it  can  exercise — I  am  ready  to  unite  with  him,  and  to  vote  for  the 
resolutions  now  proposed  by  a  majority  of  the  Committee.  Nothing  of  that 
kind  has  been  attempted,  and  nothing  of  that  kind  can  be  successfully,  or  even 
plausibly,  attempted.  I  oppose  the  resolutions,  therefore,  because  it  is  a  funda¬ 
mental  doctrine  of  our  party,  as  it  was  the  habit  of  our  Democratic  fathers,  to 
construe  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  plainly,  strictly,  jealously,  and  to 
abstain  in  every  case,  as  far  as  possible,  from  the  exercise  of  eveD  doubtful  power. 
The  Federal  Government  has  no  intrinsic  authority ;  it  exists  by  mere  delega¬ 
tion  from  the  States;  and,  consequently,  if  that  be  not  granted  by  the  Consti¬ 
tution  in  express  terms,  or  as  necessarily  incident  to  some  other  power  so  granted, 
Congress  cannot  assume  any  right  of  municipal  legislation  for  the  Territories. 
Admit,  if  you  please,  that  a  grant  of  this  character  ought  to  have  been  made — 
that  the  sages  who  framed  our  Constitution,  and  inaugurated  a  Government 
under  it,  were  entirely  at  fault — and  what  then  ?  Will  gentlemen  endeavor,  by 
acts  of  Congress,  or  the  resolutions  of  a  party,  or  any  like  contrivance,  to  supply 
such  a  defect?  Our  fathers  did  not  see  fit,  in  their  wisdom,  to  supply  it;  and 
if  it  must  now  be  supplied — for  any  cause  whatsoever — let  us  call  upon  the 
States  to  amend  the  Constitution  in  due  form,  and  not  undertake  to  amend  it 

* 


7 

by  our  platform.  Sir,  I  cannot,  and  I  will  not,  in  these  circumstances,  contrib¬ 
ute  toward  arming  the  Federal  Government  with  any  such  power  of  legislation. 
It  does  not  belong  to  the  Government  at  all ;  it  is  not  even  of  a  Federal  charac¬ 
ter;  it  is  the  assumption  of  imperial,  arbitrary,  absolute  dominion  over  a  distant 
people  who  have  no  Senators  or  Representatives  in  Congress,  no  vote  for  the 
President  or  the  Vice  President,  no  voice  or  influence  in  the  Government  any¬ 
where.  To  act  thus,  sir,  would  be  contrary  to  the  genius  of  our  Constitution; 
contrary  to  the  faith  of  our  Democratic  fathers;  an  utter  violation  of  the  re¬ 
served  rights  of  the  States,  and  a  violation  even  more  enormous,  if  that  be  pos¬ 
sible,  of  the  rights  of  our  fellow-citizens  inhabiting  the  Territories.  [Applause.] 
And  the  power  of  Congress  being  limited,  by  the  Constitution,  to  the  organiza¬ 
tion  of  Territorial  governments  for  the  protection  of  persons  and  property,  and 
to  the  mere  supervision  of  those  governments,  within  very  close  limits,  until 
such  time  as  the  people  have  attained  the  stature  of  sovereignty,  and  taken  the 
garments  of  sovereignty  upon  themselves,  I  say  that  whenever  if  shall  sub¬ 
stitute  itself  for  a  Territorial  Legislature — for  the  representatives  of  the  people 
immediately  chosen — Congress  will  have  transcended  the  barriers  of  the  Con¬ 
stitution  by  many  degrees,  and  (more  than  all  that)  have  grasped  with  a  rude 
hand  the  very  heart-strings  of  liberty  and  free  government. 

I  ask  you  again,  Mr.  President,  whether  the  soil  of  South  Carolina — stained 
with  so  much  blood  spilled  in  the  defence  of  popular  sovereignty  against  for¬ 
eign  domination — covering  the  bones  of  heroes  and  sages  who  resisted  nobly, 
in  their  day,  the  encroachments  of  Federal  power  upon  the  reserved  rights  of 
the  States  and  the  people — is  an  appropriate  place  on  which  the  General  Con¬ 
vention  of  the  Democratic  party  ought  to  resolve  that  it  will  maintain,  or  even 
countenance,  the  exercise  by  Congress  of  authority  not  granted  by  the  Constitu¬ 
tion,  or  dpubtful  authority,  at  best,  in  disregard  of  the  wishes  of  the  people 
over  whom  such  authority  is  to  be  exercised  ! 

I  object,  furthermore,  that  Congressional  intervention  with  the  subject  of 
slavery  in  the  Territories — disguised  by  the  majority  of  the  Committee,  in  their 
repoi*t,  uuder  the  excuse  of  “protection”  to  property  whether  in  slaves  or  in 
aught  else — will  be  fatal  to  the  continuance  of  our  Union,  to  its  growth,  its 
welfare,  its  now  needful  repose.  For  the  first  thirty  years  of  the  Federal  Gov¬ 
ernment,  we  had  no  such  controversies  as  have  lately  arisen  and  become  so  im¬ 
minent;  and  this  because  we  then  allowed  the  people  of  each  Territory,  as  well 
as  the  people  of  each  State,  to  do  very  much  as  they  pleased.  And  who  was 
injured  by  that?  Alabama  and  Mississippi,  whilst  under  Territorial  govern¬ 
ment,  saw  lit  to  recognize,  and  maintain,  and  cherish  the  relation  of  master 
and  slave.  Congress  did  not  meddle  with  their  affairs;  nobody  else  meddled; 
they  were  left,  as  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  now  declares,  to  regulate  their  do¬ 
mestic  institutions  in  their  own  way.  Afterwards,  when  they  formed  State  con¬ 
stitutions,  they  chose  still  to  recognize,  and  maintain,  and  cherish  that  relation; 
and  they  were  both  admitted  into  the  Union,  as  slaveholding  States,  without  the 
slightest  opposition  or  complaint.  And  now,  gentlemen,  point  to  me  a  case,  to 
a  single  instance,  where  slavery  has  existed  in  a  Territory  and  a  slaveholding 
State  thence  formed,  except  by  means  of  the  “squatter  sovereignty”  which  you 
abhor  and  revile.  I  have  mentioned  Alabama  and  Mississippi ;  shall  I  mention, 
likewise,  the  cases  of  Tennessee,  Louisiana,  Missouri,  Arkansas,  and  Florida! 
It  was  so  in  every  case — down  to  and  including  the  present  Territory  of  New 
Mexico.  ‘ 

My  fellow-citizens:  Since  the  year  1820,  when  our  Union  touched  the  very 
brink  of  ruin — when  Thomas  Jefferson  said  that  the  agitation  of  this  subject 
alarmed  him  like  a  fire-bell  in  the  night — the  wise  men  of  the  Democratic  party, 
together  with  the  wisest  men  of  the  Whig  party,  have  constantly  endeavored, 
and  that  by  all  possible  means,  to  banish  the  question  of  slavery  within  the 


8 


Territories  from  the  Halls  of  Congress.  It  has  been  the  fruitful  source  of  diffi¬ 
culties  and  sorrow.  Whenever  it  is  open  for  discussion,  in  Congress,  each  House 
becomes  a  theatre  for  demagogues  of  the  meanest  description — a  place  whence 
unruly  spirits,  from  the  North  and  from  the  South,  send  forth  inflammatory  ap¬ 
peals  to  the  pride,  the  prejudices,  the  passions  of  their  respective  constituents. 
Nothing  is  transacted  for  the  common  weal;  but  all  is  wrangling,  and  bitter¬ 
ness,  and  animosity,  most  fatal  to  the  interests,  the  welfare,  and  the  peace  of 
both  sections.  Will  there  never  be  an  end  of  this?  Or  will  that  end  be  the 
ruin  of  our  country — the  disruption  of  the  Union,  and  of  all  those  ties  bv 
which  it  has  been  secured  ?  I  say,  for  one,  take  the  question  out  of  Congress — 
take  it  away  upon  any  terras.  Give  it  to  the  people  of  each  Territory;  and  let 
them  quarrel,  if  they  choose,  or  do  anything  else — no  matter  what — rather  than 
restore  such  disputes  to  Congress.  That  was  the  idea  of  the  Compromise  Meas¬ 
ures  in  1850  ;  that  was,  also,  the  doctrine  of  the  Kausas-Nebraska  bill. 

I  do  not  claim  that  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  conferred  upon  a  Territorial 
Legislature  the  power  to  exclude  slavery,  nor  did  it,  upon  the  other  hand,  deny 
to  a  Territorial  Legislature  tfte  power  of  such  exclusion.  It  said  nothing  on 
that  subject,  but  declared  that  Congress  would  not  intervene,  one  way  or  another, 
to  establish  or  to  exclude  slavery,  to  protect  ^>r  to  discourage  slavery;  but  that 
the  people  of  each  Territory,  to  the  full  extent  of  their  authority  under  the  Con¬ 
stitution,  as  expounded  by  the  judicial  tribunals  on  proper  occasions,  should 
regulate,  dispose  of,  and  legislate  upon  the  subject  at  their  own  pleasure. 

The  honorable  delegate  from  Alabama  refers  to  a  speech  delivered  by  Senator 
Brown,  of  Mississippi,  during  the  debate  on  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  in  which 
(as  he  tells  us)  a  particular  interpretation  of  the  bill  was  announced,  and  not  im¬ 
mediately  contradicted  by  any  one  else.  Therefore,  says  the  honorable  delegate, 
the  bill  must  now  be  thus  interpreted.  Mr.  President,  who  ever  hgprd,  before 
this,  that  in  a  deliberation  of  sixty  odd  Senators  and  two. hundred  and  thirty  odd 
Representatives,  when,  perhaps  toward  the  close  of  a  debate,  when  all  were  tired 
of  it,  and  either  gave  no  attention  or  very  little  to  what  wras  said,  one  gentleman 
could,  by  his  speech,  commit  a  whole  Congress,  or  a  whole  Senate,  to  hi^  opin¬ 
ion  ?  I  know  Senator  Brown  very  well;  I  admire  him,  and  have  many  kind 
relations  with  him.  I  do  not  recollect  the  speech  to  which  the  honorable  dele¬ 
gate  alluded  ;  but  I  feel  confident  that  Senator  Brown  would  not  disagree  with 
me,  if  he  were  present,  as  to  the  meaning  and  effect  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill.  My  colleague  [Mr.  Payne]  quoted,  this  morning,  from  a  speech  of  Hon. 
R.  M.  T.  Hunter,  of  Virginia,  delivered  in  the  Senate,  on  the  24th  of  February, 
1854,  to  which  I  will  again  call  your  attention.  I  adopt  it,  unqualifiedly,  as  an 
exposition  of  my  own  opinions.  Mr.  Hunter  then  said : 

“The  bill  provides  that  the  Legislatures  of  these  Territories  shall  have  power  to  legis¬ 
late  over  all  rightful  subjects  of  legislation  consistently  with  the  Constitution.  And  if 
they  should  assume  powers  which  are  thought  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  Constitution, 
the  courts  will  decide-ffhat  question  wherever  it  may  be  raised.  There  is  a  difference  of 
opinion  among  the  friends  of  this  measure  as  to  the  extent  of  the  limits  which  the  Con¬ 
stitution  imposes  upon  the  Territorial  Legislatures.  This  bill  proposes  to  leave  these  dif¬ 
ferences  to  the  decision  of  the  courts.  To  that  tribunal  T  am  willing  to  leave  this  deci¬ 
sion,  as  it  was  once  before  proposed  to  be  left  by  the  celebrated  compromise  of  the  Sena¬ 
tor  from  Delaware,  (Mr.  Clayton) — a  measure  which,  according  to  my  understanding,  was 
the  best,  compromise  which  was  offered  upon  this  subject  of  slavery.  I  say,  then,  that  I 
am  williug  to  leave  this  point,  upon  which  the  friends  of  the  bill  are  at  difference,  to  the 
decision  of  the  courts.” 

That,  sir,  is  in  substance,  and  almost  in  words,  what  the  minority  of  the  Com¬ 
mittee  now  recommend  us  to  declare.  I  could  point  you,  in  the  Congressional 
Globe,  to  a  hundred  instances  in  which  Senators  and  Representatives  delivered 
the  very  same  sentiments  during  the  debate  on  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  I 
have  heard  them  uttered,  time  and  again,  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 


9 


by  gentlemen  who  voted  for  that  bill,  during  the  course  of  the  last  four  years. 
I  know,  exactly,  what  the  bill  intended  ;  it  is  no  matter  of  argument,  or  proba¬ 
bility,  or  criticism,  with  me.  I  know  that  the  people  of  each  Territory  were  to 
legislate  upon  the  subject  of  slavery,  whether  for  its  protection  or  its  discourage¬ 
ment,  until  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  should  have  determined  as 
to  the  authority  of  a  Territorial  Legislature  in  that  regard.  The  Democratic 
Senators  and  Representatives  could  not  agree  upon  that  question,  and,  therefore, 
could  not  and  did  not  determine  it;  they  left  it  to  the  courts  for  determination. 
No  act  of  Congress  could  have  settled  it,  or  can  ever  settle  it.  The  Cincinnati 
platform  follows  this  very  idea;  not  (as  gentlemen  have  said)  that  it  is  suscepti¬ 
ble  of  two  interpretations — for  it  is  not — but  that  it  purposely,  aud  for  excellent 
reasons,  avoided  any  resolution  upon  the  subject.  There  may  be  two  opinions, 
or  more  than  two,  with  regard  to  the  question  thereby  left  to  the  courts  for  de¬ 
termination  ;  but  there  cannot  be  two  opinions  as  to  the  intent  of  the  platform 
to  avoid  that  question,  and  avoid  it  altogether.  This  brings  me  now  to  ask 
whether  any  platform,  or  any  act  of  Congress,  ever  wilDor  can  decide  a  question 
of  that  character.  « 

It  is  in  vain  to  deny  that  with  a  Federal  Government  constituted  as  our 
Government  has  beeu — deriving  all  power  by  delegation  from  the  States,  and 
having  dependencies,  colonies,  xTr  (as  we  now 'call  them)  Territories — there  is 
a  peculiar  right  of  emigration — a  purely  American  right  of  emigration  from 
the  States  into  the  Territories.  I  acknowledge,  frankly,  that  this  right  is  not 
merely  a  right  to  go,  naked,  isolated,  without  anything  which  pertains  to  the 
emigrant  as  a  citizen  of  one  of  the  States.  That  would  be  an  absurdity  in 
terms.  The  emigrant  does  not  take  with  him,  of  course,  the  laws  of  Ms  own 
State;  neither  does  he  require  any  special  right  founded  upon  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States;  but  his  right  is  derived  from  the  nature  of  our  Federal 
Government,  as  a  Government  of  States  with  Territories  belonging  to  those 
States,  and  to  be  peopled  by  means  of  emigration  from  the  States.  It  is  cer¬ 
tainly  a  right,  therefore,  to  take  his  family,  his  household,  and  whatsoever  per¬ 
tains  to  him  as  a  citizen.  On  the  other  hand  (as  all  must  acknowledge)  there 
*1  •  '•  •'  #  /  # 
is  another  American  right,  as  entirely  peculiar  and  as  well  defined  ;  a  right 

belonging  to  every  community  of  our  citizens:  I  mean,  sir,  the  right  of  local 
self-government.  It  prevails  in  the  States,  and  prevails,  also,  in  the  Territories. 
How  far  these  two  rights,  at  once  peculiar  and  apparently  equal,  may  conflict 
with  each  other;  in  what  cases,  to  what  extent,  or  in  what  particular  circum¬ 
stances,  the  one  shall  be  preferred  to  the  other  :  that  is  a  question  which  cannot 
be  decided  in  advance.  No  act  of  Congress  ever  will  settle  it;  no  general  rule 
can  be  predicated  of  it.  Flow  idle,  therefore,  to  embrace  it  by.  our  platform  ! 
It  must  be  left  to  some  impartial  authority — to  some  other  tribunal  than  our¬ 
selves.  If  we  should  ascertain,  hereafter,  that  no  competent  authority  has  been 
provided,  by  the  wisdom  of  those  who  formed  our  Constitution,  we  can  appeal 
to  the  States,  in  their  separate  and  sovereign  capacity,  to  provide  one.  The 
form  in  which  a  question  of  this  character  will  first  arise,  and  where  it  will  ordi¬ 
narily  be  determined,  is  the  court  of  some  Territory,  whence  it  may  be  taken 
by  appeal,  or  writ  of  error,  to  the- Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  as  a  tri¬ 
bunal  established  for  the  adjudication  of  controversies  arising  under  the  Consti¬ 
tution,  or  between  the  several  States,  or  the  citizens  of  any  two  States. 

And  here,  sir,  allow  me  an  observation  as  well  in  reply  to  the  honorable  del¬ 
egate  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Butler)  as  to  the  honorable  delegate  from  Ala¬ 
bama.  I  agree  that  no  court  of  merely  judicial  significance — whether  appellate 
or  inferior — can  bind  any  one  of  the  States,  as  between  the  Federal  Government 
and  herself,  in  the  last  resort.  [Applause.]  I  believe  the  Federal  Government 
to  be  founded  upon  mutual  and  written  compact  between  the  States;  and  inas¬ 
much  as  the  States  entered  into  that  compact  separately  and  of  their  sovereign 


10 


will,  so  it  belongs  to  each  of  them,  as  the  ultimate  arbiter  of  her  own  destiny, 
to  decide  when  thfl  compact  has  been  broken,  as  well  as  to  ordain  the  mode  and 
measure  of  redress.  [Great  applause.]  But  whilst  1  say  this,  I  will  say,  also, 
that  with  regard  to  the  Federal  Government  alone,  consisting  of  three  coordi¬ 
nate  departments,  the  argument  is  irresistible  that  a  determination  by  the  judi¬ 
ciary  in  favor  of  a  constitutional  prohibition  to  the  exercise  of  power  by  Con¬ 
gress,  or  by  an  executive  officer,  ought  to  be  treated  with  entire  respect  and 
deference. 

The  case  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States — to  which  both  gentlemen  alluded 
— does  not  contravene  this  proposition  in  the  least.  The  Supreme  Court  deci¬ 
ded  that  such  a  bank  was  constitutional ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  Congress 
might,  in  its  discretion,  or  at  its  own  pleasure,  establish  or  refuse  to  establish  an 
institution  of  that  character.  Very  well ! — as  one  member  of  Congress,  I  see 
no  necessity  or  propriety  in  establishing  a  Bank  of  the  United  States,  and  there¬ 
fore  will  vote  against  it.  But  when  (as  in  the  case  of  Dred  Scott)  the  Supreme 
Court  decides  that  Congress  has  no  power  to  exclude  slaves  or  the  institution  of 
slavery  from  the  Territories,  if  Congress  should,  notwithstanding  that  decision, 
enact  such  a  law,  it  would  array  the  judicial  and  the  legislative  departments  of 
the  same  Government* in  direct  opposition  to  wich  other;  and  from  this  opposi¬ 
tion  of  two  independent,  equal, 'coordinate  auTOorities  —  there  being  no  arbiter 
between  them. —  confusion  must  immediately  ensue,  and  the  Government  be  ren¬ 
dered  powerless.  It  therefore  becomes  the  duty  of  the  legislative  department, 
in  such  circumstances,  to  abstain  from  a  course  of  action  thus  tending  to  confu¬ 
sion,  anarchy,  and  common  ruin.  I  say  here — what  I  have  once  said  in  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States — that  no  court  ever  shall  adopt  a  'political  platform 
for  me;  shall  prescribe  to  me  any  article  of  faith  or  of  opinion — neither  by  a 
decision  hereafter  to  be  made,  nor  a  decision  already  made.  I  will  believe,  or 
disbelieve,  according  to  my  own  standard;  will  entertain  my  opinions,  and,  if- 
necessary,  will  vindicate  them  at  all  proper  times  and  places;  but  as  a  legislator, 
or  even  as  an  elector — entrusted  with  the  exercise  of  authority  in  which  all  the 
States  and- the  people  of  all  the  States  are  equally  interested — I  do  not  conceive 
m}7self  at  liberty,  upon  any  pretext  whatsoever,  to  bring  on  a  collision  of  the 
judicial  and  the  legislative  branches  of  our  Federal  system.  On  the  contrary, 
whatever  my  opinion  as  an  individual,  it  becomes  a  high  and  unavoidable  dutv 
that  I  should  bow  to  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  such  a  case,  and 
furthermore,  as  far  as  in  me  lies,  take  care  that  the  decision  is  faithfully  execu¬ 
ted. 

Therefore,  sir,  if  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  should  ever  decide 
(contrary  to  the  opinion  which  I  entertain)  that  a  Territorial  Legislature  has  no 
right,  even  by  a  prospective  law,  to  exclude  the  institution  of  slavery,  or  prevent 
the  introduction  of  slaves  within  its  jurisdiction,  and  any  Territorial  Legislature 
should  thenceforth  attempt  such  exclusion  or  prevention,  whether  by  direct,  or 
by  indirect  or  unfriendly  legislation,  I  agree  that  the  Federal  Government  ought 
to  exercise  all  its  constitutional  authority,  and  to  the  amplest  extent,  in  restrain¬ 
ing,  repressing,  or  annulling  so  violent  au  usurpation. 

Allow,  me  to  pursue  the  subject  one  step  farther.  In  thus  rendering  effectual 
a  decision  of  the  judicial  department,  made  within  the  sphere  of  its  constitu¬ 
tional  duties,  I  take  no  responsibility  from  the  shoulders  of  the  judges.  I  neither 
affirm  nor  deny  the  correctness  of  their  adjudication.  I  say,  merely,  that  the 
court  of  last  resort,  under  the  Constitution,  has  expounded  the  law  of  the  land ; 
and  whether  it  be  expounded  rightly  or  wrongly,  in  my  own  estimation,  is 
altogether  a  subordinate  inquiry  and  of  no  practical  importance.  It  is  for  the 
sake  of  peace,  of  public  order  and  security — for  the  maintenance  of  the  Union 
according  to  the  terras  of  compact  between  the  States — to  prevent  collision,  and 
violence,  and  an  ultimate  appeal  to  the  sword — that  I  shall  insist  upon  carrying 


11 

into  full  effect,  and  in  good  faith,  even  a  decision  which  may  not  be  acceptable 
to  me. 

The  difference  between  the  honorable  delegate  from  Alabama  and  myself, 
therefore,  is  exactly  this:  He  wishes  us  to  assume  for  Congress,  in  advance,  a 
power  of  municipal  legislation  over  the  Territories.  I  make  no  distinction 
here — nor  can  that  be  of  any  consequence — whether  such  legislation  be  with 
regard  to  slaveiy,  or  to  any*olher  relation  or  institution.  I  acknowledge  at 
once,  and  there  need  be  no  farther  argument  upon  it,  that  the.  right  of  a  mas¬ 
ter  to  the  services  of  his  slave,  is  a  right  of  property,  and  as  valid  as  any  other. 
I  acknowledge,  furthermore,  that  it  is  entitled  to  the  same  protection  and  favor, 
by  the  Federal  Government,  within  the  Territories,  as  other  forms  of  property; 
I  agree  that  Congress  can  rightfully  make  no  discrimination  against  it,  and  none 
for  it.  The  difficulties  of  this  question,  in  my  mind,  arise  from  no  such  con¬ 
siderations.  Gentlemen  of  the  South  cannot  say,  therefore,  that  the  question  is 
of  peculiar  interest  to  themselves,  or  peculiarly  concerns  one  form  of  property 
more  than  another.  The  difficulties,  in  my  mind,  are  of  a  different  character; 
they  arise  from  the  principles  enunciated  in  the  famous  resolutions  of  Virginia 
and  Kentucky,  in  1798  and  1799,  and  the  report  of  James  Madison  expound¬ 
ing  those  principles — in  other  words,  sir,  in  reconciling  the  arguments  of  the 
honorable  delegate  from  Alabama  with  the  ancient  Democratic  doctrine  of 
“strict  construction”  as  applied  to  the  Federal  compact,  and  a  due  regard  to  the 
reserved  rights  of  the  States  and  the  people.  Show  me  the  exleut  to  which  the 
Constitution  has  authorized  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  proceed,  by 
legislation  or  otherwise,  for  the  protection  of  other  forms  of  property,  within  the 
boundaries  of  a  Territorial  organization,  and  I  am  ready  to  proceed  as  far — 
and  to  proceed  now — for  the  protection  of  property  in  slaves. 

I  will  make  another  remark  in  this  connection.  There  may  be  a  case  (and  I 
can  easily  suppose  one)  in  which  the  inhabitants  of  a  Territory  have  proven 
themselves  unlit  for  self-government,  and  even  incapable  of  it.  In  such  a  case, 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  being  the  author  of  Territorial  organiza¬ 
tions,  although  not  a  principal  of  which  Territorial  Legislatures  are  the  mere 
agents,  may  find  it  necessary  to  interpose  the  right  of  authorship  as  a  paramount 
law — lest  a  1  the  purposes  of  Territorial  government  should  be  subverted,  pri¬ 
vate  and  personal  rights  or  vested  rights  of  property  be  destroyed,  and  anarchy 
or  civil  war  inaugurated.  I  believe  that  is  the  condition  of  affairs,  to-day,  in 
the  Territory  of  Utah  :  it  was  nearly  or  quite  as  bad,  at  one  time,  in  the  Terri¬ 
tory  of  Kansas.  I  should  have  no  scruples,  in  such  a  case,  in  revoking  the 
Territorial  charter  of  organization,  or  so  amendingrit  as  to  secure  the  rights  of 
persons  and  of  property  as  far  as  that  could  be  effected  by  a  constitutional  ex¬ 
ercise  of  authority  on  the  part  of  the  General  Government.  Another  Emigrant 
Aid  Company  from  Massachusetts,  or  from  some  other  State,  or  any  like  asso¬ 
ciation  of  disorderly  and  disloyal  men — a  band  of  Mormon  Saiuts,  perhaps,  or 
a  secret  society  formed  in  Great  Britain,  or  Canada,  or  elsewhere — might  seize 
upon  the  power  of  a  Territorial  government  within  our  limits,  and  so  conduct 
its  administration  as  virtually  to  prohibit  the  immigration  of  citizens  from  a 
part  or  all  of  the  States,  or  subject  such  immigrants  to  the  confiscation  of  their 
lawful  property  or  the  destruction  of  their  personal  rights.  A  Territorial  gov¬ 
ernment  might  array  itself  in  opposition  to  the  Government  of  the  United 
States — disclaim  allegiance,  or  refuse  obedience  to  a  judicial  mandate,  or  abuse 
its  authority  in  numberless  ways;  and  in  all  such  cases,  I  grant  that  the  whole 
strength  of  the  Federal  Government  may  and  must  be  brought  to  bear  for  the 
correction  of  mischief  and  wasteful  disorder.  But,  sir,  it  is  of  none  of  these 
cases,  nor  of  others  approaching  them,  the  honorable  delegate  from  Alabama 
now  speaks:  he  insists  that  Congress  is  the  immediate,  local,  municipal  Legis¬ 
lature  of  each  Territory,  and  that  the  Legislatures  chosen  by  the  people  of  the 


12 


Territories,  in  pursuance  of  their  respective  organical  laws,  are  only  agents, 
deputies,  or  substitutes  for  Congress.  I  deny  the  doctrine,  and  deny  it  upon  the 
soundest,  firmest,  and  most  ancient  of  our  Democratic  principles.. 

Now,  sir,  in  opposition  to  the  honorable  delegate,  I  have  endeavored  to  show 
(first)  that  whilst  some  limitations  of  territorial  authority  can  easily  be  ascer¬ 
tained  from  the  language  of  the  Constitution,  or  from  the  uature  of  our  Federal 
system,  there  are  others,  aud  those  on  which  he'insists  particularly,  not  to  be 
ascertained  so  easily  in  the  one  way  or  the  other,  nor  capable  of  definition,  be¬ 
forehand,  in  our  political  platform.  No  act  of  Congress  could  be  of  the  least 
service  to  the  honorable  delegate  and  those  who  agree  with  him;  because  the 
validity  of  such  an  act,  as  well  as  of  the  act  of  any  Territorial  Legislature,  is 
open  to  controversy,  at  all  times,  in  the  courts  of  the  United  States.  I  have  en¬ 
deavored  to  show  (in  the  second  place)  that  such  questions,  whenever  they  shall 
arise,  are  peculiarly  judicial  in  character;  and,  thirdly,  that  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  with  regard  to  such  questions  (however  it 
may  be  as  to  others,)  will  have  an  especial  and  binding  efficacy  on  the  two  co¬ 
ordinate  departments  of  the  Federal  Government.  Why  not  leave  the  subject 
in  this  condition?  If,  as  the  honorable  delegate  claims,  the  principles  adjudi¬ 
cated  in  the  case  of  Dred  Scott  be  conclusive  against  me,  and  in  his  favor,  what 
need  of  argument  or  controversy  here?  Whenever  a  Territorial  Legislature 
shall  attempt  the  abolition  of  slavery,  or  its  prospective  exclusion,  auother  case 
will  probably  arise — a  case  immediately  in  point — and  will  be  decided.  If  no 
such  attempt  should  ever  be  made — or,  having  been  made,  there  should  be  no 
slaves  within  that  Territory  on  whom  the  law  could  operate,  and  no  master 
should  wish  to  take  his  slave  thither — what  harm  can  possibly  result?  If,  how¬ 
ever,  a  case  should  arise — next  year,  or  the  year  after,  or  at  any  distance  of 
time — the  honorable  delegate  could  refer  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  to 
their  argumentation  in  Dred  Scott’s  case;  and  that,  if  his  present  claim  be  true, 
ought  to  be  sufficient.  He  may  well  stand,  therefore,  upon  the  platform  re¬ 
ported  by  the  minority  of  the  Committee;  because  he  will  find  in  it  a  pledge  of 
the  whole  Democratic  party,  North  and  South,  a  pledge  which  never  has  been 
and  never  will  be  broken,  that  any  decision  in  his  favor,  or  in  favor  of  his  con¬ 
stituents,  shall  be  carried  into  faithful,  final,  and  complete  effect.  [Applause.] 
Yes,  sir,  although  the  question  was  neither  decided  nor  considered,  nor  even 
contemplated,  by  the  judges  in  Dred  Scott’s  case,  yet  if  his  opinions  be  the 
necessary  result  of  what  was  then  decided  or  declared,  the  honorable  delegate 
may  well  be  content.  He  can  now  assure  himself  that  whenever  the  question 
shall  arise — and  it  can  be  of  no  consequence  until  it  has  arisen — the  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court  will  be  exactly  as  he  desires ;  and  he  is,  therefore,  abundantly 
certain  of  all  the  protection  to  slave  property  within  the  Territories  that  ever 
will  be  requisite.  In  my  opinion,  sir,  no  such  question  was  decided  in  the  case 
of  Dred  Scott,  nor  intended  to  be  decided,  or  concluded,  or  in  any  wise  affected. 
I  shall  not  take  refuge  under  the  pretext  to  which  the  honorable  delegate  al¬ 
luded ;  namely,  that  the  Supreme  Court  had  exhausted  its  jurisdiction  before  it 
arrived  at  the  argument  whether  or  no  Congress  could  exclude  slaves  or  slavery 
from  the  Territories.  I  agree  that  the  constitutionality  of  the  Missouri  Compro¬ 
mise  (so  called)  was  fully  before  the  Court  for  adjudication,  and  was  fully  ad¬ 
judicated  ;  but  I  deny  that  the  right  of  a  Territorial  Legislature  to  exclude  the 
institution  of  slavery,  or  to  deal  with  property  in  slaves  to  the  same  extent  as 
with  all  other  property,  was  before  the  Court  in  any  shape  or  form.  No  such 
question  was  presented  by  the  record  ;  there  was  no  act  of  any  Territorial  legis¬ 
lature  in  the  case — no  organization  of  a  Territorial  government  over  the  public 
domain  where  the  parties  had  resided.  It  was  not  a  controversy  brought  from 
the  courts  of  a  Territory;  aud  nothing  in  it,  or  about  it,  could  give  occasion  to 
any  argument  upon  that  question.  We  have,  also,  the  public  declaration  of 


13 


Hon.  Reverdy  Johnson,  in  whose  favor,  as  counsel,  the  case  of  Dred  Scott  was 
decided,  that  neither  he,  nor  his  eminent  colleague,  Hon.  Henry  S.  Geyer,  now 
deceased,  ever  argued  the  question  at  bar.  What  more  need  be  said  ?  I  staud 
upon  every  syllable  of  Chief  Justice  Taney’s  opinion  ;  I  repudiate  nothing  which 
that  opinion  affirms;  but  I  certainly  did  not  expect  the  honorable  delegate  from 
Alabama — I  might  have  expected  it  from  an  advocate  less  able  or  less  frank — 
to  select  occasional  words  or  sentences,  a  paragraph  here  and  a  paragraph  there, 
without  regard  to  their  true  connection,  and  thus  eke  out  a  conclusion  of  some¬ 
thing  never  examined  by  the  judges,  nor  argued  by  counsel.  It  is  of  that,  sir, 

I  have  complained  frequently,  and  now  complain.  I  do. not  believe  that  Chief 
Justice  Tauey  intended  the  slightest  reference  to  the  question  whether  a  Terri¬ 
torial  Legislature  could  or  could  not,  by  a  prospective  law,  forbid  the  introduc¬ 
tion  of  slaves  or  the  establishment  of  slavery  ;  if  he  did,  there  is  no  sign  of  it  in 
his  reported  opinion — and  none,  assuredly,  in  the  reported  opinion  ot  any  other 
judge.  I  never  heard  a  Senator  or  a  Representative  in  Congress,  belonging  to 
the  Democratic  party,  attribute  such  an  effect  to  the  case  of  Dred  Scott  until 
within  twelve  or  fourteen  months  past. 

But  after  the  Lecompton  controversy  had  been  concluded,  and  there  was  a 
general  disposition  of  all  sincere  Democrats,  in  the  South  as  well  as  in  the  North, 
to  bury  eveu  the  remembrance  of  that  fruitless  issue,  the  present  controversy 
was  provoked  —  needlessly,  causelessly,  and  wantonly  provoked.  That  has 
brought  on  us,  of  the  Northwestern  States,  the  heaviest  misfortunes  with  which 
we  are  now  afflicted.  We  had  almost  recovered  from  the  disaster  ot  1854 — a 
disaster  produced  by  the  combination  of  the  Know  Nothing  party,  so  called, 
with  Abolitionists,  Whigs,  and  seceders  from  our  own  ranks.  We  had  so  far 
commended  our  doctrines  to  reasonable  men,  of  all  parties,  that  in  November, 
1856,  Mr.  Buchanan  lost  the  electoral  college  of  Ohio  by  a  plurality  of  sixteen 
or  seventeen  thousand,  while  Mr.  Fillmore  received  upwards  of  twenty  thousand 
votes.  We  undertook  to  prove,  and  did  prove,  wherever  we  went,  that  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  congressional  non-intervention  would  give  peace  to  the  whole  coun¬ 
try,  and  secure  to  both  sections  alike — to  the  North  and  to  the  South — their 
equal  light  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  Territories  as  the  possession  of  all  the  people 
of  all  the  Slates  in  common.  In  October  of  the  next  year  (1857)  my  honored 
colleague,  Mr.  Payne,  who  spoke  this  morning,  was  defeated  for  Governor  of 
Ohiq  by  a  plurality  of  twelve  hundred  votes — the  American  candidate  receiv¬ 
ing  more  than  ten  thousand.  What  a  descent  from  the  opposition  majority  of 
75,000  in  1854!  We  obtained,  also,  iu  October,  1857,  a  large  majority  in  each 
House  of  the  Ohio  Legislature. 

The  Lecompton  controversy  would  not  have  injured  us  so  seriously,  in  Octo¬ 
ber,  1858,  but  for  the  unwarrantable  interference  of  the  Federal  Administration 
with  the  local  elections  in  our  neighbor  State  of  Illinois.  Even  then,  at  the  ut¬ 
most  disadvantage,  we  returned  more  Democrats,  from  Ohio,  to  the  House  of 
Representatives,  at  Washington,  than  were  returned  from  any  other  non-slave¬ 
holding  State — more  thau  North  Carolina,  or  Kentucky,  or  Tennessee  returned, 
or  even  Mississippi,  or  Louisiana — as  many,  in  fact,  as  Arkansas,  Texas,  Florida, 
and  Delaware  combined.  In  the  month  of  February,  1859,  the  present  contro¬ 
versy  flamed  on  us  from  the  South — suddenly,  and,  as  we  believe,  for  no  ade¬ 
quate  reason.  It  was  a  new  claim,  and  a  dangerous  one — overthrowing  the 
cherished  and  most  firmly  seated  doctrines  of  the  ancient  and  true  Republican 
or  Democratic  party,  and  menacing  us  with  a  renewal,  in  Congress,  of  all  the 
disturbances  from  which  we  had  promised  our  people  a  final  and  perpetual  de¬ 
liverance. 

It  was  demanded  of  us,  boldly,  what  faith  can  longer  be  reposed  in  the  De¬ 
mocracy  of  the  South?  Did  we  not  (said  our  own  friends)  Conclude  a  solemn 
agreement  and  covenant,  in  1854,  for  the  removal  of  this  controversy  out  of 


« 


14 


Congress,  and  its  reference  to  the  people  of  the  Territories,  subject,  ouly  to  such 
limitations  of  Territorial  authority  as  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
should,  from  time  to  time,  declare?  Did  we  not  —  falling  from  the  summit  of 
prosperity,  which  we  then  enjoyed  at  home,  to  our  present  debased  circum¬ 
stances — seal  that  very  covenant  with  our  heart’s  blood? 

There  sits  my  honored  friend.  General  Dodge,  a  delegate  from  Iowa,  one  of 
the  first  victims  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill ;  there  sits  my  honored  friend  from 
Michigan,  Mr.  Stuart,  whose  vote  for  the  same  bill  was  an  act  of  suicide.  Gen¬ 
tlemen  of  the  South,  show  me  such  examples  in  your  ranks;  show  me  the  man, 
one  man,  who  has  ever  breasted  a  storm  like  that — who,  after  years  and  years 
of  confidence  aud  applause  from  his  constituents,  has  deliberately  goue  forward, 
and,  for  the  sake  of  his  Northern  friends,  taken  upon  himself  the  honors  of  po¬ 
litical  martyrdom.  You  have  no  such  man  here,  nor  any  where  else;  you  can¬ 
not  show  him  to  me.  Those  two  Senators  could  have  been  reelected  —  could 
have  abandoned  you,  and  saved  themselves  (if  they  had  so  chosen)  as  readily  as 
you  would  now  abandon  us.  But  they  chose,  at  the  certainty  of  their  own  de¬ 
feat,  to  make  an  agreement  with  you  ;  and  having  scrupulously  kept  their  faith, 
as  against  all  temptation,  ought  you  to  be  less  faithful  toward  them  ? 

The  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  contains  the  agreement  to  which  I  allude.  Did  that 
contemplate  the  intervention  of  Congress,  in  any  eveut,  for  the  maintenance  of 
slavery,  or  even  the  protection  of  slave  property,  within  the  Territories?  It  cer¬ 
tainly  did  not.  The  honorable  delegate  from  Alabama  mentioned  the  clause  of 
it  known  as  the  Badger  proviso;  I  will  show  you  in  what  connection  that  pro¬ 
viso  stands,  and  the  very  words  in  which  it  is  expressed.  The  bill  first  declares 
the  Missouri  restriction  of  March  6th,  1820,  to  be  “inconsistent  with  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  non-intervention,  by  Congress,  with  slavery  in  tlie  States  and  Terri¬ 
tories,”  as  recognized  by  the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  and,,  therefore, 
wholly  inoperative  and  void.  We  know  that  Congress  refused,  in  1850,  either 
to  annul  or  affirm,  within  the  Territories  of  New  Mexico  and  Utah,  the  old  de¬ 
cree  of  the  Mexican  republic  abolishing  slavery  and  excluding  property  in  slaves. 
It  was  left  to  the  courts  of  the  United  States  to  decide,  whenever  the  question 
should  aiise,  whether  that  decree  had  or  had  not  ceased  to  be  effectual  upon  the 
cession  of  the  Territories  to  us. 

But  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  did  not  terminate  here;  it  assigned  the  reason 

why  Congress  annulled  the  act  of  March  6th,  1820,  after  refusing,  in  1850*  to 

annul  the  former  laws  of  New  Mexico  and  Utah.  The  words  are  these: 

• 

“It  being  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  Ter¬ 
ritory  or  State,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom ;  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly 
free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.” 

Not  “subject”  to  farther  legislation  by  Congress — nothing  of  that  sort.  The 
people  of  each  Territory  were  to  have  their  own  “way”  thereafter — to  “  legis¬ 
late”  for  themselves — to  “regulate  their  domestic  institutious,”  including  the 
admission  or  exclusion  of  slavery,  at  their  pleasure;  “subject,”  howTever,  iu  this 
respect,  as  in  all  others,  to  such  prohibitions  or  restrictions  as  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  had  laid  upon  them — but  “subject  only  to  the  Constitu¬ 
tion.” 

In  no  event,  therefore,  as  contemplated  by  the  hill,  was  Congress  to  inter¬ 
pose  its  legislation — whether  for  the  protection,  or  the  establishment,  or  the 
prohibition,  or  the  abolition  of  slavery.  Because  here,  right  here,  comes  the 
Badger  proviso : 

“ Provided,  That  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  construed  to  revive  or  put  in 
force  any  law  or  regulation  which  may  have  existed  prior  to  the  act  of  6th  March,  1820, 
either  protecting ,  establishing,  prohibiting,  or  abolishing  slavery.” 


15 


Congress  would  not  protect  slavery  in  Nebraska  or  Kansas ;  would  not  even 
“  legislate”  for  the  admission  of  slavery  into  them:  Neither  would  Congress 
allow  any  remnant  of  legislation  prior  to  March  6th,  1820,  any  trace  of  old 
Spanish  or  French  codes,  decrees,  or  customs,  to  be  invoked  for  that  purpose. 
All  were  swept  out  of  existence,  or  rather  prevented  from  coming  into  existence, 
by  the  terms  of  Mr.  Badger’s  amendment.  Whatever  legislation  may  be  deemed 
requisite,  at  any  time,  for  the  protection  of  slavery  in  Kansas,  or  in  Nebraska; 
such  legislation,  in  all  its  length  and  breadth,  and  of  every  degree,  except  in 
some  crisis  of  anarchy,  violence,  or  insurrection,  must  proceed  from  the  Legis¬ 
lature  of  the  Territory,  and  not  from  the  Congress  of  the  United  States. 

Gentlemen  of  the  South  !  that  was  the  mutual  covenant  between  you  and  us 
in  1854 — a  covenant  solemuly  ratified  on  both  sides,  at  Cincinnati,  in  1856,  and 
by  a  unanimous  vote.  You  see,  therefore,  in  what  position  the  Democracy  of 
the  Northwest  now  stand,  and  where  we  will  continue  to  stand.  I  ask  no  sym¬ 
pathy  in  our  political  misfortunes,  past  or  present,  for  we  intend  to  recover  all 
that  we  have  lost;  but  I  do  ask  you,  as  brethren,  as  friends  in  former  days, 
whether  you  taught  us  the  doctrine  of  “  Non-intervention  by  Congress  with 
slavery  in  the  States  and  Territories''’  thirteen  or  fourteen  years  ago,  repeating 
it  to  us  in  1848,  in  1850,  in  1852,  in  1854,  in  1856,  and  yet  imagine  that  we 
are  so  regardless  of  our  consistency,  our  honor,  our  self-respect,  as  in  1860,  at 
your  beck  and  mere  demand,  to  recant  the  whole  of  it?  You  ouce  demanded 
that  doctrine  of  us,  and  at  a  time  when  we  were  strong  and  you  were  weak;  we 
acceded  to  your  demand  as  brethren,  and  calmly  took  upon  ourselves  the  most 
disastrous  consequences.  We  are  about  to  achieve  success  in  the  very  field  of 
our  disasters;  and  have  you  the  heart  to  say  that  we  shall  strike  our  ancient 
flag — the  flag  endeared  to  us  by  so  many  associations,  by  the  baptism  of  sorrow 
through  which  we  have  carried  it  eveu  now  to  the  gates  of  victory? 

The  honorable  delegate  from  Alabama  advised  the  Southern  Democracy  to 
accept  a  present  defeat  rather  than  forego  the' demand  which  he  made  for  them. 
I  do  not  even  require  so  much  ;  you  will  not,  you  cannot  be  defeated,  in  the 
Southern  States,  if  we  maintain  cur  old  terms  of  alliance.  Let  us  now  stand 
together,  closely  side  by  side,  as  we  did  four  years  ago.  As  for  the  second  reso¬ 
lution  reported  by  the  minority  of  the  Committee,  I  am  quite  indifferent  whether 
it  be  adopted  or  rejected.  What  is  good  in  it — and  what,  I  presume,  it  really 
intends — is  already  expressed  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  I  have  said  that  I 
am  no  admirer  of  judicial  platforms;  they  are  insecure  structures,  and  might  as 
well  be  avoided.  But  I  have  no-hesitation  in  saying,  and  I  kuow  that  is  what 
my  colleague  (Mr.  Payne)  means,  that  with  regard  to  the  Federal  Government 
alone,  its  co-ordinate  branches  and  their  correlative  obligations,  the  mandates 
of  the  Judiciary  ought  never  to  be  so  contravened  by  the  Legislature  as  to  in¬ 
duce  a  collision,  or  any  serious  conflict  or  disturbance.  If  more  be  attributed 
to  the  resolution,  or  can  fairly  be  imputed  by  others,  let  us  amend  it  or  wholly 
reject  it. 

As  to  the  report  of  the  majority  (taking  its  several  resolutions  together)  I 
cannot  and  will  not  agree  to  it.  Not,  sir,  because  I  have  sympathy  with  Abo¬ 
litionists,  or  new-fangled  Republicans,  or  whatsoever  else  those  men  call  them¬ 
selves,  or  may  be  called — far  from  that.  It  is  because  I  believe  in  construing 
the  Constitution  by  strict  rules — believe  in  the  reserved  l  ights  of  the  States  as  pro¬ 
claimed,  in  1798  and  1799,-  by  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky  resolutions — that  I 
will  never  couseut  to  arm  the  Federal  Government  with  such  powers  as  have 
been  claimed  for  it;  powers  which  it  cannot  wisely  or  even  prudently  exercise; 
powers  the  very  attempt  to  exercise  which,  as  all  of  us  know,  must  renew  con¬ 
troversy,  discord,  and  bitter  estrangement.  I  had  earnestly  hoped  there  was  an 
end  to  all  this ;  let  us  make  an  end  of  it  now  ! 

The  honorable  delegate  from  Alabama  exhorted  us  of  the  North  also — ex- 


16 


♦ 


horted  us  to  teach  our  people  the  rightfulness,  the  expediency,  the  advantages 
of  African  slavery  as  an  institution  or  domestic  relation.  I  do  not  accept  the 
exhortation  :  it  is  none  of  iny  business  to  declare  what  Alabama,  or  any  other 
State,  should  resolve  on  that  subject;  nor  does  it  pertain  to  the  honorable  dele¬ 
gate  whether  we,  or  those  whom  we  represent,  agree  or  disagree  with  him.  The 
question  is  not  one  of  Federal  character,  or  concernment.  But  now,  consulting 
with  each  other,  as  the  representatives  of  all  the  States,  slaveholding  and  non¬ 
slaveholding,  in  regard  to  matters  of  common  interest — about  to  enter  upon  a 
Presidential  campaign  of  unexampled  importance — I  exhort  you,  gentlemen  of 
the  South,  by  the  hopes  and  promises  of  success  (vital  to  us,  and  even  more  vital 
to  you)  not  to  be  misled,  or  deceived,  or  betrayed.  Do  not  sutler  yourselves  to  be 
driven  from  the  old  faith  and  safe  practice  of  the  Democratic  party  !  Let  no  sec¬ 
tional  pressure  upou  you,  my  Southei  n  friends,  induce  you  to  abandon  the  Cincin¬ 
nati  platform  !  We,  of  the  North,  have  encountered,  and  that  frequently,  a  like 
pressure — yes,  indeed,  pressure  a  thousand-fold  more  imminent — but  we  have  not 
yielded  to  it,  thus  far,  one  thousandth  part  of  a  hair’s  breadth.  Can  you  show  me, 
any  where,  an  ultimate  safeguard  as  valuable  as  this  ?  Shall  it  be  the  case,  hence¬ 
forth,  wheuever  two,  three,  or  more  of  the  Southern  States  adopt  a  new  plat¬ 
form,  and  come  into,  our  Convention  demanding  its  recognition  as  the  price  of 
their  electoral  votes,  that  we  must,  all  of  us,  North  and  South,  surrender  to  such 
demands — lest  they  should  accuse  us  of  “squatter”  sovereignty,  or  Abolitionism, 
or  Black  Republicanism,  or  any  tiling  else  ?  Are  you  afraid  of  mere  nicknames  ? 
If  so,  come  into  our  Northern  country,  and  listen  to  the  speeches  of  your  and 
our  enemies.  My  own  opinion  is,  frankly,  that  the  Democratic  party  of  the 
South  has,  this  day,  such  an  opportunity  to  prove  its  faith,  its  courage,  its  honor, 
as  does  not  happen  to  a  man  more  than  once  in  his  life-time.  You  must  now 
resist  the  urgency  of  fanaticism  in  your  section — resist  it,  my  Southern  friends, 
as  we  have,  resisted  it  in  the  North  !  You  have  been  so  maltreated,  so  reviled, 
so  shamefully  abused,  by  the  Black  Republicans,  for  the  last  six  or  seven  years, 
that  some  of  vou  have  become  utterly  alarmed — frightened  out  of  ali  reason — 
and  even  wildly  evince  a  determination  to  quit  the  old  Democratic  party,  and 
seek  some  other  contrivance  for  shelter.  My  friends,  there  is  no  refuge  of  that 
sort  any  where.  If  the  Democratic  ship  ever  should  founder — go  down  into 
the  vortex  of  angry  waves — think  not  some  raft,  or  a  mere  boat,  of  Southern  or 
of  Northern  construction,  will  be  able  to  save  either  you  or  us!  But  whilst 
we  have  a  ship,  with  our  ancient  ensign  displayed,  there  must  be  no  mutiny  on 
board.  If  any  of  the  delegates  will  not  submit  to  Democratic  usage,  to  the 
rules  of  our  Democratic  organization,  the  sooner  they  leave  us  the  better.  We 
shall  part  with  them,  if  part  we  must,  without  anger,  reluctantly,  and  in  sorrow. 

For  myself,  in  conclusion,  I  repeat  that  the  resolutions  proposed  by  the  ma¬ 
jority  of  the  Committee  are  objectiouable  to  me  not  so  much  because  of  any 
advantage  which  may  enure  from  their  doctrine  to  one  section  or  to  another; 
but  because  I  am  opposed  to  the  renewal  of  a  mischievous  controversy  once 
fairly  settled,  and,  as  we  had  all  limped,  forever  determined.  I  desire  the  people 
of  the  United  States,  North  and  South,  to  engage  in  some  other  discussion — to 
quarrel,  if  need  be,  on  something  else  than  this  eternal  business  of  slavery  and 
slaves.  Nothing  is  to  be  gained  by  its  discussion.  Wheu  such  controversies, 
therefore,  can  result  in  no  advantage  to  either  side;  when  they  bleed  constant 
ill- blood,  disaffection,  and  disturbance — the  disruption  of  political  parties  formed 
on  higher  considerations,  and  for  much  higher  objects — I  implore  gentlemen 
from  the  South  to  rise  above  the  atmosphere  of  their  passions  and  their  preju¬ 
dices.  There  never  was  a  more  urgent  occasion  than  the  present;  and  never 
has  duty  called  upon  them  more  loudly,  more  earnestly,  than  it  does  now. 


